An international failure

I hate to disillusion Mark Seddon (Letters, September 18) but it is unclear that, even with a second resolution, the invasion of Iraq would have been legal. The fact that so many on the left are keen to embrace the UN system and international law is strange, given that the central value of both is not human rights but state sovereignty.

I have no doubt that Tony Blair dissembled over his reasons for taking us to war. To have openly declared his intention to take part in regime change on the basis of the nature of Saddam's rule would have opened him to prosecution under the international criminal court. To aid the victims of tyranny is illegal; to defend yourself from the threat of WMD is not.

Too many on the left treat the UN and the system of international law as if it was what they wished, rather than as what it is. The focus on state sovereignty means that it protects tyrants, not their victims. There may be those who want to insist that there was some other way to rid Iraq of Saddam. But sanctions only hurt the Iraqi people, not the regime. And both non-violent and violent internal opposition was brutally suppressed. Even Saddam's death was only likely to bring one of his psychotic sons to power. So the war in Iraq may well have been illegal, but that does not make it immoral. Unjust laws are there for the breaking. The principle of state sovereignty is the most unjust law of all. Adam E Rule Newcastle

Just as Tony Blair admits that Iraq has become a "crucible" for the battle against global terrorism, a senior diplomat, Sir Ivor Roberts, gets flack for stating that Bush has been a recruiting sergeant for al-Qaida (Al-Qaida would back Bush, says UK envoy, September 21). If Blair thinks Iraq has become this crucible, then surely we should be asking why.

It seems that the prime minister has ignored Foreign Office concerns for some time over the intelligence on weapons, the legality of the war and the dangers of the postwar environment in favour of listening to Bush. His linkage of Iraq and terrorism is a linkage that many foresaw before the war. A little more humility from Blair in front of this barrage of expert advice and perhaps Britain might have steered a slightly safer course through choppy waters. Chris Doyle Director, Council for Arab-British Understanding

Dan Plesch repeats the call for impeachment (Comment, September 22), but in the democratic era the idea that the House of Lords should be able to remove a prime minister is complete nonsense.

In the pre-democratic era impeachment was a way of "liquidating" opponents. Now the ballot box is available for political opponents, and the criminal courts for criminals, which is why a commons select committee recommended abolishing impeachment in 1967. If the opposition wishes to try to remove the prime minister at any time they can move a vote of no confidence, or wait for the general election.

In reality, the impeachment call is just a publicity stunt. Tony Benn says on the same page: "The House of Commons voted for the war and MPs are unlikely to go into the lobby to condemn themselves" (MPs can end this Iraq folly, September 22). He could have added that many of us who voted against the war reject any charge that the prime minister acted in bad faith.

In a free society everyone is entitled to oppose their rulers, but using lawyers and lords to try to topple an elected government is fundamentally undemocratic. Kevin Brennan MP Lab, Cardiff West